NCRC Methodology:
Karen Delise: Director of Research
In an effort to improve our understanding of the circumstances surrounding the rare instances of severe and fatal canine aggression, I have been researching such incidents for approximately 20 years. My conclusions are consistent with those of the Centers for Disease Control, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and virtually every animal welfare organization in America.
I published FATAL DOG ATTACKS: THE STORIES BEHIND THE STATISTICS (2002). It was, at that time, the most complete discussion and analysis of the extremely rare instances of fatal canine aggression then available. But even that compilation was not enough. After five years of further research, I completed and published THE PIT BULL PLACEBO: THE MEDIA MYTHS AND POLITICS OF CANINE AGGRESSION (2007). PLACEBO is an historical discussion of changing American attitudes toward specific breeds of dogs, as well as a more sophisticated analysis of the factors that contribute to severe and fatal canine aggression.
In researching these two books, and in the years since, I have accumulated the most extensive data file of these incidents available anywhere. I have extensive documentation (autopsy reports, crime scene photos, incident reports, etc.). I have interviewed police investigators, animal control officers, coroners, forensic pathologists, veterinarians, health department officials, dog owners, and eye witnesses. I maintain a record of all the names, dates and notes for every interview I have conducted. In my books, I provided more much information and detail than is available anywhere else. Each case or fatality noted is fully documented. I extensively footnoted both books. Both books include data sets in tabular form for easy reference.
A case study of my methodology is attached. As you will read, the complete investigation took more than a year. In the end, however, I had obtained what I believe is an instructive result.
My approach in both books was historical and investigative. Based upon my research, I specifically rejected a statistical/epidemiological approach. I have always concurred with the American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions which stated, “Dog bite statistics are not statistics, and do not give an accurate representation of dogs that bite.”
For the purposes of adding to the data in the frequently-cited study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998,” (JAVMA, 2000), the lead author of that report, Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, was kind enough to give me a copy of his data set, which I have since added to and/or corrected, as needed. A summary of my result can be found in “Zoonosis Update: Animal Bites,” by Gary J. Patronek and Sally A. Slavinski (JAVMA, 2008)
I have on file information concerning approximately 600 incidents. With respect to incidents that occurred prior to 1984, my records are limited almost exclusively to news accounts. After 1984, information began to be more accessible, as many law enforcement, medical examiner and animal control files were not old enough to be purged. Record-keeping was gradually being computerized. Also, an increasing number of the police officers, deputies and/or animal control officers who had responded to the scene or investigated a fatal dog bite incident were still employed in their respective offices.
Dr. Sacks and his collaborators reported that they were uncertain of the breed attributions they had obtained, and were unsure how to account for dogs that were reported as mixed breed animals. Their study only covered a particular 20-year period, 1979-1998; and they also reminded readers that the breeds identified in fatal attacks had changed over time.
The CDC has published a statement that the single-vector approach in “Breeds of Dogs” does not “identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.” The AVMA has published and distributed a comparable statement.
The AVMA Task Force went further: “An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are ‘most dangerous’? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as ‘dangerous.’ . . . singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control . . . ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens.”
Dr. Randall Lockwood, one of the authors of the CDC’s “Breeds of Dogs,” as well as a member of the AVMA Task Force, submitted an affidavit in 2007 in opposition to the breed ban currently in effect in Denver, Colorado. He stated, in part: “Focusing on a single breed as the ‘source’ of the dog bite problem reflects a 19th century epidemiological mindset that attempts to identify the vector of a public health problem and eliminate that vector. . . The dog bite problem is not a disease problem with a single vector, it is a complex societal issue that must address a wide range of human behaviors in ways that deal with irresponsible behavior that puts people and animals at risk.”
In fact, all of the professionals involved in these earlier studies have come to the same conclusion: breed attributions yield no useful understanding of fatal attacks that have occurred, and do not offer a way to reduce such incidents in the future.
My study of fatal attacks occurring over the past five decades has identified the poor ownership/management practices involved in the overwhelming majority of these incidents: owners obtaining dogs, and maintaining them as resident dogs outside of the household for purposes other than as family pets (i.e. guarding/ protection, fighting, intimidation/status); owners failing to humanely contain, control and maintain their dogs (chained dogs, loose roaming dogs, cases of abuse/neglect); owners failing to knowledgably supervise interaction between children and dogs; and owners failing to spay or neuter resident dogs not used for competition, show, or in a responsible breeding program. (See Chapter 14 of THE PIT BULL PLACEBO, “The Real Causes for Dog Attacks,” for a more detailed discussion.)
Investigation into incidents of canine aggression that goes beyond a simplistic single-vector approach has necessarily entailed much more work than any researcher hitherto imagined. However, only an historical, relational approach such as I continue to employ can yield a true understanding of these rare tragedies, and produce the outcome that we all hope for: safer, more humane communities.
APPENDIX
Case study showing method of investigation: Fatal Dog Attack, 2004
In March 29, 2004, the Bakersfield Californian reported that an elderly Delano man had died of injuries after being mauled by one of his own dogs earlier that month. No other details or information was published at the time. No report had been published at the time he was injured.
The next report of this incident is to be found in my book THE PIT BULL PLACEBO.
I came across the Californian item in the spring of 2004. To research the circumstances surrounding this attack, since the Californian had been reporting on the findings of the Kern County Coroner, I started with the Sheriff’s office in Kern County. The Sheriff’s office said that they had not handled the case. Since the dateline on the news story was Bakersfield, I contacted the Bakersfield Police Department. My contact with that department referred me to the Delano Police Department.
I spoke to the Delano detective who had investigated. He said that he had not done much on the case, as the man had not died at the scene. He referred me to the animal control department.
As animal control officers are usually on the road, it was some weeks before I was able to speak with the investigating officer, Veronica Torres. In the interim, I had been able to obtain from the Delano Police the incident report, photographs of the dog, and photographs of the victim.
Officer Torres was very helpful. She told me that, as is very unusual in these cases, there was an eyewitness. The victim’s wife had been present.
Officer Torres also told me that Delano was a “bad place to be a dog.” She said that they had a problem of people abandoning dogs and otherwise not taking good care of their animals.
The victim and wife maintained five dogs on the premises: In the yard, there were two sub-adults that appeared to be St. Bernard mixes, and a third older dog, the one that killed him, who appeared to be a shepherd-type (see photo below). Officer Torres told me that the shepherd-type dog was a 2-3 year old intact male whom the victim had kept from a litter of a stray female.
Two additional dogs were later found secured in the garage on the property. Both the victim and his wife were elderly. In her statement to authorities, the wife never referred to any of the dogs by name.
On the day in question, all three of the yard dogs were involved in a fence fight with the dog next door. According to the victim’s wife, the victim went into the yard to chase the dogs away from the fence. As part of that effort, the victim took hold of the shepherd-type dog, and attempted to pull him away from the fence. The dog turned around and bit him on the arm. The victim fell, and the dog then attacked his face and head. (The wife was not sure whether the dog had pulled or knocked him down, or he had fallen.)
The wife attempted to intercede, armed with a shovel, but there was nothing she could do on her own. She said, however, that the shepherd-type dog did not attempt to bite her. She sustained no injuries.
She reported that her husband said, “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.”
By the time the shepherd-type dog stopped his attack, he had ripped off the victim’s face. The victim was still alive at the scene. He died three weeks later in a local hospital.
The authorities impounded the three yard dogs. The victim’s wife later consented to their euthanization. The fate of the two dogs in the garage is not known, except that she did not surrender them to the authorities.
National Canine Research Council